About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 6
MSNBC 5
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
the obama administration, i'm quoting him now, of a, quote, massive cover-up. let's bring in our pentagon correspondent barbara starr. she's working this story for us. how those are pretty stinging and strong words, barbara. >> reporter: absolutely, wolf. you know, the whole benghazi situation has already led to delays in confirming some of president obama's key appointees. chuck hagel at defense, john brennan at the cia, and now senator mccain saying he is not ready to call it a day on all of this. a congress hearing -- >> then you ought to have your facts straight. >> reporter: after congressional hearing. >> who responsible then? >> reporter: republican senator john mccain challenge, the white house on its response to benghazi. now he is going further on nbc's "meet the press." >> so there are many, many questions and we have had a massive cover-up. >> a cover-up of what? i'm just saying you, a cover-up of what? >> i'll be glad to send you a list of questions that have not been answered. >> reporter: the white house says it's given answers. conducted 20 briefings for congress. official
? >> at the pentagon. >> this is the first time hearing of this. when did this happen? did they make this decision on the cruise ship? >> no. no, they didn't. it actually happened in washington. >> really? that's fascinating. >> which is its own permanent port-a-potty. >> okay. mika, for those of us that were just sitting there looking at a cruise ship for 24 hours instead of following the real news, why don't you catch us up with what actually happened yesterday in the news. >> republicans blocked a vote yesterday that would have ended the debate and allowed for a final decision one way or another. democrats fell just shy of the votes needed to advance the process. something president obama chalked up to partisan politics. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says that somebody should get 60 votes. there are only a handful of instances in which there's been any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and what seems to be happening -- and this has been growing over time -- is the republican minority in the senate seem to think that the rule now is that you have
when he talks. apparently brennan wants to put them under pentagon control. who knows if that is true but there are three things i was shocked the democrats didn't bring up. and it's three questions that every president obama ditto head has to respond to. i don't like criticizing this but let's be honestly about a couple of things. number 1, the word imminent how that no longer means imminent and it means we think you might do something 20s years from now and that makes you an imminent threat and we have to kill you with with no trial. no. 2 is militant. any male over the age of 16 whose near where one of these bombs goes off is counted as a militant whether they were or not. toe try to talk al-qaeda guys. >> that's how they keep the civilian death tolls low. it's a dirt dirty business. number 3, blowback, what no democrat asked about is every time we kill an america hater with one of these things we are creating untold numbers of new. so it's person pet y'all war. >> i would add a high informed -- highly placed. we don't know who that i
have trouble managing the pentagon and bring in any reforms he might want to do. it sets up the idea, is this going to be business as usual? it is an unprecedented move to filibuster a defense nominee in the area of national security. first time it's ever happened. but could this be the norm? >> let's talk about senator john mccain who heightened a few issues here the republicans have with chuck hagel. >> to be honest with you, it goes back to, there's a lot of ill-will towards senator hagel because when he was a republican, he attacked president bush mercilessly, at one point said he was the worst president since herbert hoover, said that the surge was the worst blunder since the vietnam war, which is nonsense. and was very anti-his own party and people. people don't forget that. you can disagree but if you're disagreeable, people don't forget that. >> what do you think is the gop's strategy here and is there a sense at all that they might be creating more bad p.r. for the party because hagel appears to be on his way to being confirmed anyway? you heard david saying that they're jus
it through the bureaucracies of the pentagon. america needs chuck as our secretary of defense to bring our troops home and keep our military the strongest in the world. sergeant hagel was an american hero. when so many americans were dodging the draft he volunteered to serve in vietnam. the draft board gave him the option to return to college but chuck refused. he said i think the best thing for me is to go in the army. it may not be the best thing for the army but i think that's the way to get all this straightened out. yfsz the oldest of four boys, he said, my sphawr passed away and i just was not coming together the way i should. there was a war going on in vietnam, i felt a sense of some responsibility so i said no, i think it's time to go. and so i volunteered for the draft. went in the army and celebrated my 21st birthday in white sands missile range. and chuck didn't serve in a safe bullet. when assigned to germany he volunteered for vietnam and saw the horrors of war as an infrant fantdry sergeant. he hand his brother tom are the only known american brothers to serve side by side i
immediate to both operate inside the pentagon, and that's -- you heard robert gibbs, former press secretary yesterday say it was a little disconcerting watching him give those answers. they made a strategic decision not to have a debate with those republican senators. trying to not start fights, but was he too passive? >> there was a way to push back. david sanger, he could have said i disagree with you about the surge. senator mccain, you're my great friend, but let's talk about what's really going on. we have 66,000 troops at afghanistan right now. he didn't pivot. he didn't push back. he didn't fight. david brooks, your columnist in "the "new york times"" suggested to chuck this weekend that he should even go so far as saying to the president, mr. president, do you have second thoughts? should i withdraw? that's rather more than i would have expected at this point. >> you know, i think there were two remarkable elements to the testimony that former senator hagel gave. he seemed unprepared on basic issues. we were discussing iran before. he had a difficult time even articulating the presi
drastic. why wait until today to make these announcements? do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been warning about these sooner? >> first, we started the slowdown in spending on january 10. a number of the measures that i mentioned went into effect shortly after that. significant efforts were made to slow down spending on more draconian actions later. i know that people felt we should have said more earlier. 15 months ago the secretary sent a letter to the u.s. congress saying that the effects of sequestration would be devastating. that was october 2011. after that we testified in august and again in september, we listed every single major item we're talking about. we said that there would be cutbacks in readiness and a unit buys would go down with unit costs growing up. what we did not do was detailed budget planning. i do not regret that. if we did it 60 months ago, we would have been wrong. we would not know that congress would have changed the size and the date and we would not have incurred the degradation route. we sounded the alarm in every way that we could.
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
of improving efficiency within the pentagon. i would say that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is focused on readiness and training, which is absolutely true. if you talk to the lawyers that work with the defense contractors, they think they will have a field day care and some had testimony last year that the legal hassles emanating from sequestration may eat up a lot of their savings. but beyond that, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. and what we do is try to develop capability to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can prepare for future contingencies. the point is that it does not just readiness. it hurts us in the real world today. there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration's savings for other more targeted savings so that you save this amount of money, you're still fiscally responsible, but you don't get defense and these domestic p
there's so many installations of military and defense workers. the pentagon noted more than 700,000 civilian military workers, department of defense workers, will effectively lose 20% of their pay. they will have to work one less day a week if this goes in effect. as one observer put it, it's like a low speed car crash heading our way. >> peter alexander from 1600. peter, thank you, sir. >>> wednesday morning the supreme court will hear arguments in a case called shelby county versus holder. it's a case that could determine the future of the landmark voting rights act of 1965. to find out what's at stake, we're going to go ahead and take a reality check on this sunday. peter bacon an msnbc contributor and editor of the grio. let's start at the beginning, if you will, for folks not following the story perhaps. what's at stake here on wednesday? >> the key thing at stake here is this is a law -- this is 1965, that lays out basically for a lot of southern states, states that had a history of discrimination, they had -- the big portion is they have to usually pre-clear any law about
see it as an opportunity to slim down the pentagon while republicans are applauding real efforts to shrink the government. however, the white house continues to paint a dire picture. attorney general eric holder says the across the board cuts will make the nation -- listen to me -- less safe. >> oh my lord. >> the justice department is going to lose 9% of its budget between now and september 30th. we'll lose $1.6 billion. there are not going to be as many fbi agents, atf agents, dea agents, prosecutors able to do their jobs as we would like them to do. this is something that will have an impact on the safety of this country and anybody who says that's not true is either lying or saying something that runs contrary to the facts. >> cramer, real quick? >> the sequester is a real bad word. sequester because 99% of american people don't understand it. i hate to use the word on "mad money." i hate it. sequester. >> don't use it. >> you can't. >> birthday cake. we can rename it birthday cake. >> fiscal cliff worked. it had great imagery. >> did you see the story on the front page of "t
is that the pentagon signed deals before the end of the year worth about $5 billion to make sure that the money was flowing before the sequester. >> $400 billion for this one weapon program. >> that's a lot of dough. >> that is a lot of dough. the cover is "the once and future pope." rick stengel, thanks for being with us. >>> coming up next, the first pictures of olympian and double amputee sprinter oscar pistorius after he's accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend. this is a guy who was the hero of london, sort of the field-good story last summer. now he is in jail accused of murder. we're going to have the latest straight ahead on "morning joe." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. i just served my mother-in-law your chicken noodle soup but she loved it so much... i told her it was homemade. everyone tells a little white lie now and then. but now she wants my recipe [ clears his throat ] [ softly ] she's right behind me isn't she? [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. [ clears his throat ] by earning a degree from capella she'more iuniversity, isn't she? you'll have the
washington post" that we needed to reduce dod as a reason to improve efficiency within the pentagon. that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is about readiness. which is absolutely true. if you talk about the lawyers that work as defense contractors, they believe that they will have a field day. we have even had testimony last year that the legal household emanating from sequestration making up a lot of the savings. but beyond that, as senator ayotte and senator lindsey reference, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. but we do is try to develop capabilities to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can perform with fewer contingencies. this hurts us in the real world today. my final point is there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration savings for other more or other more targeted savings, so the same amount of money, and these domestic progra
until today to make these announcements. do you accept the criticism that the pentagon should have been we listed every major item we are talking about. we said we had to do furloughs. we said there would be cutbacks in readiness. we said unit costs would go up. all the same things. what we didn't do with a detailed budget planning and i don't regret that. we wouldn't have known the effects of the continuing resolution. we wouldn't have known that congress is going to change the size and the. moreover, we would have incurred the productivity and we would v done it six months ago, so i don't regret not doing that. i think we did sound the alarm in every way we could. >> i am wondering what kind of contract you are having with the white house and with congress there is going to have to be some. so are you trying to offer any solutions? also, i am wondering, what other things would you be doing right now if you were not spending all your time on this sequester. >> spending time with my wife -- i think i am hot the right person to answer. we are responsible for providing the nation's securi
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)